Please guys trust her content with a pinch of salt... Walzer is considered uniue communitarian as he gave communitarian concept of justice. It was Michael sandel who gave critique of liberalism. As Michael sandel criticised the concept of " original position" of john rawls amd given his idea of "unencumbered self". He said that person is nothing without community and culture.
I'm not sure what you're implying, but it's important to base criticism on facts. From my perspective, here are my thoughts on the content: 1. Criticizing liberalism does not necessarily equate to a critique of John Rawls's theory of justice. The author was quite specific in discussing Rawls's theory in his book. 2. While she attempted to encompass Michael Walzer's entire political philosophy, it's challenging to cover every aspect in a single video. It would be more effective to create separate videos focusing on Walzer's perspectives on just war and his communitarianism. 3. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the teaching style where the presenter simply reads off slides. Despite these points, I commend her efforts. After all, here we are merely typing and critiquing her work, but that's just the way the world is 😅. If you have the time, I can share my understanding of Walzer's theory of justice. It might be more insightful to read this after watching the video.
Michael Walzer's main criticisms of John Rawls's theory of justice: 1. Methodological abstraction - Rawls uses an abstract methodology in developing his theory of justice, relying on universal principles and a thin conception of the good rather than attending to particular social meanings. Walzer argues this leads to principles that cannot be meaningfully applied and fails to show proper respect for democratic values. 2. Primary goods - Rawls focuses on distributing "primary goods" but does not recognize that the meaning and appropriate principles of distribution for goods can vary dramatically across societies. Walzer claims goods have social meanings within particular cultures that should determine their distribution. 3. Differentiation - Rawls lumps together different goods into one distributive system governed by general principles. Walzer argues justice requires recognizing different distributive spheres for goods based on their distinct social meanings. 4. Complex equality - Rawls focuses on equal distribution of resources whereas Walzer advocates for "complex equality" which prevents the dominance of one good over others through illegitimate conversions across spheres. 5. Particularism - Rawls aspires to universal conclusions through abstract reasoning. Walzer insists justice must be rooted in the particular interpretations and shared understandings of specific cultures and communities. Walzer critiques Rawls for excessive abstraction and insufficient attention to social meanings, cultural particularity, and the differentiation of goods. He advocates an interpretive methodology focused on specific contexts rather than universal principles.
In his book Spheres of Justice, Michael Walzer puts forth a theory of justice based on a pluralistic conception of social goods. He argues against the notion that there is a single principle or unified set of principles that can determine just distributions for all goods in all spheres of society. Instead, he proposes a more complex view where justice requires understanding the social meanings of particular goods within particular distributive spheres, and distributing those goods according to criteria intrinsic to each sphere. Some key aspects of Walzer's theory include: Complex Equality Walzer rejects the idea of "simple equality" where equality means sameness in possessions or resources. He sees this as requiring an oppressive level of state intervention that erodes liberty. Instead, he argues for "complex equality" where inequalities are allowed in different spheres, but goods cannot be freely converted across spheres to multiply inequalities. Dominance and monopoly within spheres is minimized to prevent the domination of some spheres over others. A Theory of Goods Walzer puts forth a social theory of goods, where goods are conceived and created with shared social meanings. The meaning of goods determines how they should be distributed, based on principles internal to each sphere. He rejects the notion of primary or basic goods that determine just distributions across all spheres. Autonomy of Distributive Spheres Related to the idea of complex equality, Walzer argues that when social meanings are distinct, distributions must be autonomous between spheres. Money or power in one sphere should not dictate distributions in another sphere based on unrelated criteria. For example, the distribution of medical care should be based on medical need, not the ability to pay. Critique of Market Imperialism Walzer is critical of the tendency of market relations to dominate other distributive spheres. He sees the blurring of boundaries between spheres as a form of tyranny, where money converts into power, status, opportunity, and other goods. He argues for limiting the range of market exchange and redistributing to counter market dominance. Membership Precedes Distribution Walzer stresses that membership in a political community must be settled before determining just distributions of goods. Admission and exclusion are integral to self-determination. However, he argues against permanent alienage or “guest worker” status as incompatible with democratic principles. Security and Welfare Walzer discusses the idea of communal provision to meet the needs of members as they collectively understand them. This is constrained by available resources and subject to democratic determination. Provision should be based on need and maintain the equality of membership. Critique of Utilitarianism Walzer objects to the utilitarian idea of coordinating distributions under a central plan aimed at maximizing utility. He sees this as dominating and overriding social meanings of goods upheld in particular communities. Justice depends on understanding meanings, not imposing an abstract calculus. Money and Commodities Walzer defends a bounded marketplace where money facilitates exchange but does not dominate other spheres. He delineates exchanges that should be blocked to maintain autonomy of goods like political power, criminal justice, rights and liberties, love, and more. Redistribution may be required to contain market imperialism. Office Walzer traces the historical development of the concept of office to constrain patronage and simony. He discusses the notion of careers open to talents, but argues meritocracy brings its own tyranny of the qualified. He considers alternatives like democratized selection or lottery. Hard Work Walzer examines how work is valued and distributed based on degrees of danger, oppression, and undesirability. He sees collective bargaining as necessary to counter the coercion of individual workers in desperate trades. Dangerous work may require communal risk-sharing. Dirty Work Related to hard work, Walzer discusses the necessity of dirty or servile work. He argues this should be shared equally as a requirement of membership to uphold equal dignity. Compensation, free time, and social honor may be means of mitigating necessary inequalities. Free Time Walzer explores concepts of leisure and rest, arguing for common constraints on work time. He sees free time as a good that should be distributed equally as far as possible to allow equal participation in community. Education Walzer describes education as both a communal good necessary for political participation, and a competitive good for specialized training. He advocates universal primary education, with elite higher education based on merit. But selection must be open and equalized to the extent possible. Kinship and Love Walzer discusses family, marriage, gender relations as distributive issues arising from cultural meanings, though less subject to principles of justice. He sees marriage as moving historically from hierarchal authority to mutuality. Gender equality depends on changing constructions of masculinity and femininity. Divine Grace Walzer examines how divine grace is understood and allotted in different religions. He argues that in societies that see grace as located in a church, autonomy of religious distributions from other spheres like wealth or birth status is central to avoid corruption. Recognition Walzer explores recognition of merit as a key good, subject to misuse and corruption. He sees punishments and prizes as forms of recognition that should go not to the powerful, but to those who actually deserve them based on communal values. Political Power Walzer argues that political power has a double character: it is both a distributed good and the means of distributing other goods. Hence blocking the conversion of power into other spheres is crucial. Democratic arrangements like separation of powers, checks on majorities, dispersion of power, and rights protections are key means to this end. At the end we can say that Walzer offers a nuanced alternative to simplistic notions of equality, arguing for attending to the social meanings of goods within spheres to determine just distributions. He sees complex equality and autonomy of spheres as central to avoiding domination and upholding liberty. His work offers valuable insights for thinking about distributive justice.
Thank u mam your video is very helpful ❤
Thank you❤
So comprehensive to😾🫶🏻🤖❤️
Awesome explanation
Thanks
Thank you didi
Mam communitarianism me walzer or sandel dono ki theory enough h ya or bhi theory h please bta dijiyega. Mera paper h
Thnku mam
Please guys trust her content with a pinch of salt... Walzer is considered uniue communitarian as he gave communitarian concept of justice. It was Michael sandel who gave critique of liberalism. As Michael sandel criticised the concept of " original position" of john rawls amd given his idea of "unencumbered self". He said that person is nothing without community and culture.
❤❤❤
Plz mam michael sandl pa vedio bnaye mera exam ha 2 7 ko
ok
Thanks for making complex Michael Walzer so simple 🙏❤... Good luck 🤞 for your channel ma'am
Thanks a lot 😊
text k oper writing mat krna jo ap bool rahi han
Maam plz pl lz
How about you come back when you learn to speak English.
@@lostsoul1321 english is a language not knowledge..... What about you come back after shedding the vestiges of colonial legacy
Saara galat padati ye madam. Kuch samaj nhi isko
I'm not sure what you're implying, but it's important to base criticism on facts. From my perspective, here are my thoughts on the content:
1. Criticizing liberalism does not necessarily equate to a critique of John Rawls's theory of justice. The author was quite specific in discussing Rawls's theory in his book.
2. While she attempted to encompass Michael Walzer's entire political philosophy, it's challenging to cover every aspect in a single video. It would be more effective to create separate videos focusing on Walzer's perspectives on just war and his communitarianism.
3. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the teaching style where the presenter simply reads off slides.
Despite these points, I commend her efforts. After all, here we are merely typing and critiquing her work, but that's just the way the world is 😅. If you have the time, I can share my understanding of Walzer's theory of justice. It might be more insightful to read this after watching the video.
Michael Walzer's main criticisms of John Rawls's theory of justice:
1. Methodological abstraction - Rawls uses an abstract methodology in developing his theory of justice, relying on universal principles and a thin conception of the good rather than attending to particular social meanings. Walzer argues this leads to principles that cannot be meaningfully applied and fails to show proper respect for democratic values.
2. Primary goods - Rawls focuses on distributing "primary goods" but does not recognize that the meaning and appropriate principles of distribution for goods can vary dramatically across societies. Walzer claims goods have social meanings within particular cultures that should determine their distribution.
3. Differentiation - Rawls lumps together different goods into one distributive system governed by general principles. Walzer argues justice requires recognizing different distributive spheres for goods based on their distinct social meanings.
4. Complex equality - Rawls focuses on equal distribution of resources whereas Walzer advocates for "complex equality" which prevents the dominance of one good over others through illegitimate conversions across spheres.
5. Particularism - Rawls aspires to universal conclusions through abstract reasoning. Walzer insists justice must be rooted in the particular interpretations and shared understandings of specific cultures and communities.
Walzer critiques Rawls for excessive abstraction and insufficient attention to social meanings, cultural particularity, and the differentiation of goods. He advocates an interpretive methodology focused on specific contexts rather than universal principles.
In his book Spheres of Justice, Michael Walzer puts forth a theory of justice based on a pluralistic conception of social goods. He argues against the notion that there is a single principle or unified set of principles that can determine just distributions for all goods in all spheres of society. Instead, he proposes a more complex view where justice requires understanding the social meanings of particular goods within particular distributive spheres, and distributing those goods according to criteria intrinsic to each sphere.
Some key aspects of Walzer's theory include:
Complex Equality
Walzer rejects the idea of "simple equality" where equality means sameness in possessions or resources. He sees this as requiring an oppressive level of state intervention that erodes liberty. Instead, he argues for "complex equality" where inequalities are allowed in different spheres, but goods cannot be freely converted across spheres to multiply inequalities. Dominance and monopoly within spheres is minimized to prevent the domination of some spheres over others.
A Theory of Goods
Walzer puts forth a social theory of goods, where goods are conceived and created with shared social meanings. The meaning of goods determines how they should be distributed, based on principles internal to each sphere. He rejects the notion of primary or basic goods that determine just distributions across all spheres.
Autonomy of Distributive Spheres
Related to the idea of complex equality, Walzer argues that when social meanings are distinct, distributions must be autonomous between spheres. Money or power in one sphere should not dictate distributions in another sphere based on unrelated criteria. For example, the distribution of medical care should be based on medical need, not the ability to pay.
Critique of Market Imperialism
Walzer is critical of the tendency of market relations to dominate other distributive spheres. He sees the blurring of boundaries between spheres as a form of tyranny, where money converts into power, status, opportunity, and other goods. He argues for limiting the range of market exchange and redistributing to counter market dominance.
Membership Precedes Distribution
Walzer stresses that membership in a political community must be settled before determining just distributions of goods. Admission and exclusion are integral to self-determination. However, he argues against permanent alienage or “guest worker” status as incompatible with democratic principles.
Security and Welfare
Walzer discusses the idea of communal provision to meet the needs of members as they collectively understand them. This is constrained by available resources and subject to democratic determination. Provision should be based on need and maintain the equality of membership.
Critique of Utilitarianism
Walzer objects to the utilitarian idea of coordinating distributions under a central plan aimed at maximizing utility. He sees this as dominating and overriding social meanings of goods upheld in particular communities. Justice depends on understanding meanings, not imposing an abstract calculus.
Money and Commodities
Walzer defends a bounded marketplace where money facilitates exchange but does not dominate other spheres. He delineates exchanges that should be blocked to maintain autonomy of goods like political power, criminal justice, rights and liberties, love, and more. Redistribution may be required to contain market imperialism.
Office
Walzer traces the historical development of the concept of office to constrain patronage and simony. He discusses the notion of careers open to talents, but argues meritocracy brings its own tyranny of the qualified. He considers alternatives like democratized selection or lottery.
Hard Work
Walzer examines how work is valued and distributed based on degrees of danger, oppression, and undesirability. He sees collective bargaining as necessary to counter the coercion of individual workers in desperate trades. Dangerous work may require communal risk-sharing.
Dirty Work
Related to hard work, Walzer discusses the necessity of dirty or servile work. He argues this should be shared equally as a requirement of membership to uphold equal dignity. Compensation, free time, and social honor may be means of mitigating necessary inequalities.
Free Time
Walzer explores concepts of leisure and rest, arguing for common constraints on work time. He sees free time as a good that should be distributed equally as far as possible to allow equal participation in community.
Education
Walzer describes education as both a communal good necessary for political participation, and a competitive good for specialized training. He advocates universal primary education, with elite higher education based on merit. But selection must be open and equalized to the extent possible.
Kinship and Love
Walzer discusses family, marriage, gender relations as distributive issues arising from cultural meanings, though less subject to principles of justice. He sees marriage as moving historically from hierarchal authority to mutuality. Gender equality depends on changing constructions of masculinity and femininity.
Divine Grace
Walzer examines how divine grace is understood and allotted in different religions. He argues that in societies that see grace as located in a church, autonomy of religious distributions from other spheres like wealth or birth status is central to avoid corruption.
Recognition
Walzer explores recognition of merit as a key good, subject to misuse and corruption. He sees punishments and prizes as forms of recognition that should go not to the powerful, but to those who actually deserve them based on communal values.
Political Power
Walzer argues that political power has a double character: it is both a distributed good and the means of distributing other goods. Hence blocking the conversion of power into other spheres is crucial. Democratic arrangements like separation of powers, checks on majorities, dispersion of power, and rights protections are key means to this end.
At the end we can say that Walzer offers a nuanced alternative to simplistic notions of equality, arguing for attending to the social meanings of goods within spheres to determine just distributions. He sees complex equality and autonomy of spheres as central to avoiding domination and upholding liberty. His work offers valuable insights for thinking about distributive justice.